Posted on 07/18/2011 10:35:28 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
RE: no one should vote for Marcus Bachman for president.
If Michele supports Marcus, are you also saying that no one should vote for Michele Bachmann for President?
“All she did on her way out of Sodomy was look back longingly and she became a sack of salt... “
What did her being turned into salt have to do with sodomy? Not much.
What is salt? It’s inorganic; it doesn’t change; you can “dissolve” it in water, or mix it into something, it still remains unchanged, as salt.
Lot’s wife did not long for sodomy. She longed for the lifestyle Lot was able to provide for her. She was not wanting and willing to head out into a future with no guarantees. G-d had a deeper purpose for Lot and his family and change was the first part of that.
“Looking back” is failing to change, failing to accept change, failing to be allow yourself to be led by G-d into an unknown future.
That’s why Lot’s wife was turned into “salt” (as opposed to being turned into something else) - for desiring to remain fixed and unchanged, even when G-d’s will seeks that change for you.
Why does God even bother to breathe life into these creatures?
<><><><><<>
Absolutely frikkin’ hilarious. Your question above coupled with your tagline: (”Everything happens as God wants it to...otherwise, things would be different.”)
Sorry, but that’s the kind of stuff that has me LOL.
Ah God gave her a way out of Sodomy to 'live', but she was NOT willing to live... because she did not heed the warning... God was going to destroy the heap and yet for whatever purpose He had planned, gave this woman the opportunity to be saved and she for whatever excuse looked back at 'home' longingly... Now it is most curious that Christ took the time to remind any who will to 'remember Lot's wife'.
“Why does God even bother to breathe life into these creatures?”
Perhaps to show us how desperately off track we as human beings are.
This is a long debate which I don’t want to get into. This issue is settled with me and for most everyone on the other side as well. I’ll tell you some of the things I know and if you’re really interested in coming at the truth you’ll find your way to it.
Regardless of what those versions say about this subject:
A) The attitude which states “how the Bible says what it says is irrelevant.” Easily evolved into “what the Bible says is irrelevant.”
B) What those version change and leave out in some places causes an overall want of truth and want of power within those movements who adopt them and to all Christianity.
C) The very existence of those versions casts doubt on the infallibility and importance of God’s Word.
All three, there are more, lead us to where we are now: “Standards don’t matter, sin doesn’t matter, Satan is not trying to corrupt us through media, music doesn’t matter, soteriology doesn’t matter, what the Bible says doesn’t matter.”
“We, as a society can change what the Bible says to fit with the times.” Satan’s thesis statement which is shared by all of the translators of the new versions.
“I don’t see the point in calling people who have a disorder “sinners”.”
I disagree, Reddy, I don’t think it is helpful to call sinful inclinations or behaviors “disorders.” That isn’t what God calls them.
I think it is actually more helpful to those involved in one sin or a another to have it properly labelled. Calling it a “disorder” absolves you of personal responsibility. Calling it what it is - a sin - calls you to repentance.
I do agree hatred is not necessary. But it is not loving to talk about a man’s sin as though it is epilepsy.
You go to hell for indulging in sexual sin. You don’t go to hell for have eczema.
There is a difference between a sin and a disorder.
Because there is no real choice in liberalism. That’s why they now say being a homo is genetic, so you can never go back.
I understand what you are saying, but disagree.
For instance, using eczema as an comparison is a poor analogy. We’re talking about a disorder of the mind, a biological disorder, not a skin condition.
Just common sense tells you that homosexuals are different (disordered) from “typical” humans. It’s a disorder that manifests in the mind, either through chemical changes or genetics or whatever, no one knows yet. It’s evidenced in behavior. The female characteristics in males and male characteristics in females. Simple knowledge of anatomy indicates that men are not supposed to have sex with men. But the homosexual is drawn to that, I believe through no fault of their own. In comparison, an alcoholic is drawn to alcohol even while knowing that they cannot tolerate the chemical and it will eventually destroy their lives.
The DSM of the APA labeled homosexuality as a disorder (prior to l973). I believe it is, there is no scientific proof otherwise.
Anyway, as you can tell by some of the posts on this thread, “Christians” have a long way to go before they understand that calling someone a sinner does not draw them to Christ.
should say “a PSYCHOLOGICAL” disorder.
“because she did not heed the warning... “
It was not “G-ds warning ‘about the destruction’ it was G-d’s warning “to not look back”.
The warning and its purpose would have applied (in the spirit applies) to any circumstance for which it was/could have been/is given. The specific lesson to lot and his family WAS a “warning to not look back”; to not hold on to the comfort of a life you have when G-d is leading your life through change.
Narrow is the gate. This is simply exposing the FACT that although most Americans claim they are Christian, they are in fact, not.
If you believe in God, who made the heavens and the earth, who called it forth from nothing can’t change a homosexual’s life, then you have no faith. End of story.
Good points, Wuli. I had never considered the question of “why salt?” in just this way ... thanks!
RE: A) The attitude which states “how the Bible says what it says is irrelevant.” Easily evolved into “what the Bible says is irrelevant.”
I don’t see how that follows. I’ve read both King James and NIV and I don’t see ANY difference in what translations say about Homosexuality.
If someone does not want to obey scripture, he/she won’t regardless of which translation is presented.
RE: B) What those version change and leave out in some places causes an overall want of truth and want of power within those movements who adopt them and to all Christianity.
But how do you know that these later version CHANGE or LEAVE out things? Could it not be that we have more manuscripts today and as a result of our comparing manuscript with manuscript the later translations actually CLARIFY things?
What major doctrine is affected by the omission of a word for instance that has not been clarified by other verses?
I don’t see how ANY major doctrine of Christianity has been compromised by the NIV or the NKJV at all.
RE: C)The very existence of those versions casts doubt on the infallibility and importance of God’s Word.
Why should they? If any, they are wonderful testimony to the PRESERVATION of God’s word and His Providence in making His word inteligible to people who speak modern English.
“Anyway, as you can tell by some of the posts on this thread, “Christians” have a long way to go before they understand that calling someone a sinner does not draw them to Christ.”
Reddy, Jesus called people sinners.
Be not conformed to this world.
If it was something you could not help, you would not be liable for hell for it. God isn’t like that.
You can repent of homosexuality. You can repent of alcohol abuse. You can repent of fornication and adultery, too. It is not something that “happens” to you as you innocently sit by. It is chosen, sinful behavior.
Shall I say I was created heterosexual so I get to go fornicate? I can’t do that.
I for one support this. I have seen it work first hand with the son of a friend who was also addicted to drugs for many years. Now, he has finally turned his life around. He is straight, Christian, conservative and proud of it.
If you can infer that from what I wrote, you should try out for the Olympic broad jump squad. What I clearly meant was that Marcus is free to pursue his interest and that Michele is free to pursue hers. I don’t believe she possesses or claims to possess and counseling credentials. She is not accountable for her husband’s work.
There are a lot of great resources on this. I’m not one of them. Did you know there was a lesbian working with the NIV translators? Her job was to make sure the style made sense to modern readers.
Matthew 17:21 KJB This kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
Matthew 17:21 NIV Omitted
There are a lot of these.
http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/various.html
http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html
But aside from all of that you have to ask, who benefits most from changing the Word of God? If the KJB is the Word of God, why change it, if not, God is a liar. The originals? There are no originals.
If Christianity is in steep decline, as evidence by this article, could it be that we’ve accepted a corrupt revelation? If we have accepted a corrupt revelation, what would have been the consequence and would it be any different from what we’re seeing? Why, instead of Moody, Sunday, Spurgeon, Hudson Taylor, William Carey, Judson and Bob Jones do we have TD Jakes, Osteen, Kirk Cameron, Franklin Graham, and Bob Jones III? What changed and why?
RE: Did you know there was a lesbian working with the NIV translators? Her job was to make sure the style made sense to modern readers.
1) Did you know that there was a member of the KJV Westminster Hebrew translating committee by the name of Richard “Dutch” Thomson? He was known as a “’debauched drunken English Dutchman who seldom went to bed one night sober’”
Yet, I do not doubt that inspite of the fact that he had this sinful weakness, the KJV was a splendid translation.
2) Where in the NIV do we have this lesbians influence when it comes to accepting the homosexual lifestyle?
Show me the specific chapter and verse because I READ the NIV and just like the KJV, it is pretty clear to me :
““Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. “ (Leviticus 18:22)
By Lesbian, I believe you are referring to Virginia Ramey Mollenkott.
The problem was, Mollenkott once moved in evangelical circles and gave every impression of being one herself. But she started questioning the biblical teachings on the roles of men and women, and eventually apostatized completely.
Her slippery slide is documented by Mary A. Kassian in her excellent book “The Feminist Gospel : The Movement to Unite Feminism With the Church”. So the NIV hired her as a stylistic consultant in good faith, and dropped her when her heresy became known.
To show that her views didn’t influence the KJV on moral issues, and that the idea that the NIV is soft on homosexuality is arrant nonsense, see this extract from Romans 1:24-28
“Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator — who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
Here, homosexual acts are called:
* sinful desires of their hearts
* sexual impurity
* degrading of their bodies
* shameful lusts
* unnatural relations
* indecent acts
* perversion
* the result of a depraved mind that’s rejected the knowledge of God.
I don’t see how this lesbian had any influence on the NIV at all.
“I think this is an absolutely fatal mistake for any candidate to make and no one should vote for Marcus Bachman for president.”
If the MSM wants to go after First Mates, they should start with the current squatter in the people’s White House. Michelle is even angrier and more radical than BHO, if they’d ever look at & report her history, speeches, writings and affiliations.
Of course, they won’t.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.